Once the colors are chosen, Ms. Gottlieb writes a "brief," the short paragraph given to perfumers that describes what notes and mood the fragrance should embody. In the case of Lola, Ms. Gottlieb envisioned a floral scent with a hint of lightheartedness and "sparkle," she said. "Sparkle usually comes with various fruity notes, but Marc doesn't like fruity notes, so it all had to be done in a way that accomplishes the goal without disappointing him."
— From The Beauty Industry's Knowing Nose, a profile of Ann Gottlieb in the Wall Street Journal.
I may be being a bit chippy here, but the WSJ’s description of what Gottlieb does seems frustratingly opaque. It declares that she’s the nose behind Obsession, CK One and J’Adore, “acting as an intermediary between the designers and the fragrance houses that concoct the scents.” Which is great; I bet she does a terrific job sifting through the unsellable and unwearable. But it’s such careless journalism to glide right over the largely-anonymous people like Calice Becker and Alberto Morillas who actually created the above bestsellers.
And for all that the WSJ gave us some interesting insight into how Gottlieb tests the products she’s given, it was quite scanty on the details of what she actually does. Knowing what little I do about the perfume world, I can fill in some of the blanks, but the layperson would probably come away from that article with the impression that Gottlieb created those scents herself.
Why is scent journalism always so irritatingly imprecise? What Gottlieb does is awesome and interesting, and there’s no need to be coy about her job. The mechanics of daily scent-testing are worth reading about, but it means so much more if we’re told what she then does with those impressions.
I haz a cranky. I will try to be nicer now.
“Why is scent journalism always so irritatingly imprecise?”
Probably because the journalists assigned to write the articles do not actually know anything about perfume or the perfume business.
You know, I’ve been making connections between my persuit of fragrance and friends’ persuits of wine, and finding many parallels. One big difference, though, is that there’s such a mainstream conversation about wine. People read about wine, they hear about pairings on cooking shows, and it is commonplace for folks to know that they either care or don’t care about the subtletys (ur. . .subtleties? spelling is not my game this morning) of wine. Fragrance does not get this much traction, unfortunately.
I think perfume is regarded by most people as something totally frivolous. Everyone has to drink something, whether it is wine or something else. You don’t have to wear any fragrance (however much we perfumistas may think otherwise). Long gone are the days when perfume was considered medicine. Of course, that was when perfumes were made of all natural materials, most of which do have anti-bacterial, anti-viral, and anti-fungal properties. I don’t know whether many of the synthetic perfume ingredients would have such properties or not, although it is certainly possible. If we could promote the idea of perfume as being healthy or boosting the immune system, I predict there would be a huge increase in perfume sales and usage, and in the number of people who would be seriously interested in perfume.
“everyone must drink something” is true, but we musn’t (wait. . .mustn’t? oh, shoot!) all drink alcohol! I think that you’re right about health–all those studies that argue we should drink for our health certainly help people justify their evening quaff. I don’t mean to sound judgmental about those who drink, only about some of the justifications other than joy, fun, etc.
“If all be true that I do think
There are five reasons we should drink:
Good wine good friends or being dry
Or lest we should be by and by
Or any other reason why.”
Henry Aldrich
More knowledgeable Clarins associates definitely promote its Eau Dynamisante as being anti-bacterial. That’s the only contemporary example I can think of.
I read an article, at some point in the last year or so, about an upscale restaurant that has a water sommelier.
I know that I like a nice glass of Portland tap water with something light, like a salad niciouse, whereas something meatier like LA tap suits spicy tacos so much more!
Oh, maybe that’s why our Gulf Coast tap water has so much, shall I say, body and substance to it–so it will go well with the spicy Tex-Mex food.
Interesting. I do see your point, but I also kind of see it the other way: the perfumers have taken all the publicity in the past 10 years, whereas the creative direction is completely ignored. Most people who are interested in the subject can name a perfumer or two, but many perfumistas don’t know the names of people like Ann Gottlieb & Karen Khoury, etc. I don’t even know that many! With a perfume like Lola, the names of the perfumers were widely reported, but Ann Gottlieb, who possibly had as much to do with the final outcome as they did, gets virtually no credit outside the industry.
And adding: part of what this hinges on is the term “actually created”…which sort of assumes there isn’t really any creative direction to speak of, and the perfumers just do as they like.
Is there perhaps a little too much creative direction, and that is why most designer and celebrity fragrances are so strikingly unoriginal? If so many fragrances from so many houses all have to have the approval of one person in order to see the light of day, doesn’t that practically guarantee that there will be a good deal of uniformity?
I would not blame that on too much creative direction, I’d blame that on greed. There are too many fragrances, made too quickly, all wanting to make a gajillion dollars by selling to a very narrow segment of society (teenaged women, mostly). I don’t see that you can blame the whole system on one single aspect.
But also, it’s not really 1 person…there are lots of people working in creative direction.
Don’t they realize they could make more gajillions of dollars if they marketed to a large segment of society? Say, for example, middle-aged women (and men) who are actually the ones with the most money to spend.
lol @ Marc Jacob not liking fruity notes
Oh, you are naughty!
That’s what I was thinking! What did she tell him those notes were, if not fruit?
Who determines that the target audiences only like these “fruit cocktails?” I am sure there are plenty of other scent group individuals out there, yet they are treated like a minority. Thank goodness for niche because I feel if it weren’t for that, those of us that tend to lean in the opposite direction would have nowhere to go.
I would love to have her job, even if it meant pretending to like Lola.
I enjoyed her comments on the subjectivity of smell: tell MJ the sparkle does not come from fruit and he will smell {whatever note you dream up…this must be the source of those goofy notes like “martini”]; start with the colors and the names in order to influence reception of the odor….